Monday, July 16, 2012

There are many examples of Steve Jobs adamantly saying one thing, then several months or years later, Apple would do the opposite. (Like no Video iPods, I haven't gone looking for more, but there's this nice quote that covers them all pretty well.)

The trick is in the past, it was Steve Jobs himself who'd get up on stage and hold up the new device that months or years before he said Apple would never make. More often than not, they'd figured how to do that thing the right way, and it took time or technology to catch up to what they wanted to build. Competitors were likely the only ones that ever made a big deal about it when he was alive, because they believed him the first time.

Now, people are using his comments about 7" tablets several years ago to say Apple will never make one. If he was alive, I bet he'd hold up a nearly 8" tablet and say how great it was...smaller to be even more portable than an iPad, but big enough to be a joy to use.

The current iPad is great for everything for me except reading in bed. The far lighter Kindle is what I use for that. But if a new smaller iPad is also much lighter, I may just change my reading habits.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

It's from AppleInsider, so taking with a large dose of salt, but that "dedicated new iTunes service" bit in the article got me wondering. iPods are well overdue for some updates, and rather than just a bump in GB, maybe finally something bigger.

The Kindle from the beginning had a 3G cell connection (later becoming an option to make cheaper models.) But it was only used for downloading books.

What if the new nano, and maybe a new iPod touch, includes a similar "free" built-in 3G cell connection, but only for downloading music. "Get a new song, anywhere." That seems like a very Apple thing to do.

Much like the Kindle, there's no choices of carriers, Apple makes a deal with one. Even at the high rates I'm paying for a connection on my iPad it's not that expensive for them: 2GB for $30, say that's 1000 songs = $0.03 per song. At the highest available iPad account (10GB for $80) it's even less at $0.016 per song. I'm sure with some huge deal it would be far less than that, tiny fractions of a cent for the bandwidth per song.

Especially for the nano, it probably wouldn't be upgradeable to do anything else. Maybe you could upgrade the iPod touch's one to use as a data connection, much like the iPad.

And those prices have to be higher than they are now, as they're years old in some cases. To make a 3GS it seems it would be down to well under $100 by now (by Moore's Law, given the time it could be close to $50 for the 3GS). That's presumably the screen parts they would be using in the first generation iPad mini.

If a 7.85" iPad with a 1024x768 screen cost between the price of an iPad 2 and iPhone 4S to build: I'll use the high iPhone price estimate and average to call it $220 to build. A bit lower 26% profit on that would make it sell for $299.

And the build cost could be far less without a retina screen, it could be between the 3GS price and iPad 2, which could get under $150 to manufacture, and could retail for $199 or $249. If that one had just 8GB, and the upgraded one for $249/$299 had 16GB (and higher margins) they would do 25% or more profit on them too.

And it could also be between the iPhone 4S and the iPad 3 and cost around $250 to manufacture--WITH a retina display (using the same screen panels as the iPhone 4/4S.)

It could even be a combination of them, $199 for one with 8GB and a non-retina screen (perfect for schools to get for students, books take less space than apps, movies, etc.) $299 for 16GB plus a retina screen. There would be less profit margin on some, but then they'd cover all price ranges, and not leave any openings for competing tablets at all.

It has to be far cheaper to make them now. I'd guess it is well under $100. Going by Moore's law, halving the price twice given the 3 years would be under $50.

What if they start selling the 3GS without a contract, for pre-paid type phones. They might be able to sell it for $99 and still make a hefty profit. Update it so it works in China, and they might sell a billion of them.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

OS: The tablet OS is Windows 8. Which means it's tied to the update schedule for Windows…which is very slow compared to iOS and Android.

Windows Vista was about 7 months old when the first iPhone came out (November 2006 for Windows, June 2007 for iPhone.) Nearly 3 years after Vista came Windows 7. It will be over 3 years after Windows 7 before 8 is out. iOS is up to version 6 in the same timeframe. Android is up to 4.1 in the same timeframe. The massive inertia and slow development times of Windows may keep updates from coming fast enough to compete. Windows 8 might be good when you buy your new Surface tablet, but what if it's years before there's a major update to the software on it?

VENTS: If the Pro version of the tablet has a specially designed vent system, that means it's generating enough heat to need special venting. That's also an avenue in for dust or water, it may be more susceptible to small splashes or drops than the sealed iPad is. And who knows how you'd feel that heat as you hold the tablet.

COVER: The keyboard within the cover does look great. I hope Apple does their own version of that. Small touch points to power the keyboard when it's attached, so no separate battery? I'll buy one.

PCs: It also makes me wonder about Microsoft making a regular desktop or laptop computer. I've always used their Natural keyboards and mice, and like them better than anything else. Plus the XBox and Surface designs show they can make hardware.

Apple focuses on mainly the mid and high end…and makes a ton of profit off that. Microsoft could make "signature" high end laptops, probably using a lot of the design stuff they did for the Surface (vents on a laptop make sense!)

If Microsoft keeps licensing Windows to anyone, and I don't think there would be any legal problems for them to also make their own PCs.

Yes, Microsoft could piss off all the PC makers out there, but those PC makers have no other real choices. Linux/Unix? maybe, but hasn't taken off on the desktop even with 20 years of trying. ChromeOS? just getting in bed with Google. Android? same. WebOS? killed. "Windows" is why people buy a PC vs a Mac.

GOOGLE Q: And the Nexus Q thing that seems just a bad imitation of the AppleTV.

Except that Google now owns one of the biggest set-top-box manufacturers in Motorola. Why wouldn't they start to include it in those? That will get it into more homes than selling this extra little expensive thing.